A
Hardin County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher
Knight, of second degree murder, and the trial court
sentenced him to twenty-two years in confinement. In this
appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court
failed to excuse a juror for cause when the juror had
extrajudicial information about the Defendant; (2) the trial
court failed to perform its role as the thirteenth juror; and
(3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Robert
W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Norma McGee Ogle, J.,
joined.

OPINION

ROBERT
W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

I.
Procedural Background

This
case arises from the murder of the victim, the
Defendant's mother, inside her home. For this offense, a
Hardin County grand jury indicted the Defendant for first
degree premeditated murder.

A.
Voir Dire

During
voir dire, the State questioned prospective jurors, and one
juror identified himself as being personally acquainted with
the Defendant. The juror stated that his son knew the
Defendant and that his son and the Defendant had had
"trouble in the past." The juror stated that any
past experiences with the Defendant would not influence his
ability to serve as a juror and would not affect his ability
to act as an impartial juror in the trial.

Outside
the presence of the jury, the juror stated that his son and
the Defendant had been employed by the same person in the
past and that the Defendant had spent the night at the
juror's house in the past. He clarified that the
"trouble" from the past was that the Defendant and
the juror's son were "on drugs." The juror
stated that the Defendant was "the reason" the
juror's son was on drugs. The juror explained that he
"partially" blamed the Defendant for his son's
drug use. Trial counsel for the Defendant argued that, while
the juror expressed that he could be fair, the fact that the
Defendant had helped the juror's son become addicted to
drugs or was partially to blame for the addiction was
"the type of thing that should not be in a juror's
mind." When questioned by the trial court, the juror
stated that this would not affect his ability to serve on the
jury in any way. The Defendant lodged no further objection
but requested that the juror be excused for cause. The trial
court refused, noting the juror's response that he would
not be "affected."

B.
Trial

The
case proceeded to trial, and the parties presented the
following evidence: Sergeant Victor Cherry testified that he
had been employed by the Savannah Police Department for
thirty-one years and that he responded to a
"prowler" call late in the evening of March 9,
2013, or in the early morning of March 10. The call was made
to the police by the Defendant, and Sergeant Cherry responded
to the address provided. As he pulled up to the residence,
the Defendant approached him from the residence and said
someone had been trying to steal gas from his mother's
vehicle. Sergeant Cherry left the scene to patrol the
surrounding blocks for the suspect. The Defendant then called
the police dispatch a second time and requested Sergeant
Cherry come back to the residence, so Sergeant Cherry
returned.

Officer
Mark Mitchell testified that he was employed by the Savannah
Police Department and that he responded to a call in March
2013 at around 11:45 a.m. When he arrived at the scene, the
Defendant was exiting the residence, while on the phone with
the 911 dispatcher, and told Officer Mitchell that something
"bad" had happened to his mother, the victim. The
Defendant led Officer Mitchell inside the residence into the
dining room where he detected the strong odor of gasoline.
The Defendant led him over to where two bottles of what
appeared to be gasoline were lying on the floor; one bottle
had a paper towel sticking out of it as "possibly a
wick." The Defendant then led him to the victim's
bedroom door. A "blue housecoat or robe" was pushed
up against the bottom of the door covered in "some kind
of liquid." Officer Mitchell moved the door and observed
the victim lying on the floor. He detected the smell of
gasoline in the bedroom. Officer Mitchell felt for the
victim's pulse and, finding none, called an investigator.

The
Defendant told Officer Mitchell that he had just returned
from breakfast a few minutes prior to Officer Mitchell's
arrival. Officer Mitchell recalled that inside the house,
near the gasoline containers, was a lit gas heater, which he
promptly turned off to avoid an explosion. Officer Mitchell
stated that there appeared to be trauma to the victim's
head and that her head and hair were covered in blood. A
large amount of blood was present on her bed. Officer
Mitchell observed that the blood had begun to dry. Officer
Mitchell asked the Defendant to wait outside with another
officer for the investigator to arrive. He recalled that the
Defendant was not crying and did not seem upset.

The
investigator, T.J. Barker, testified that he worked for the
Savannah Police Department as a Sergeant Investigator and was
on call on March 10, 2013, when he responded to the
residence. Sergeant Barker entered the victim's residence
and smelled the very strong odor of gasoline. He also
observed a wall-mounted gas heater on which the pilot was
lit. He observed two containers filled with gasoline and
paper towels coming out of the top. At the bottom of
victim's partially open bedroom door, he observed a robe
and dried blood. He also observed the victim's body
wedged, to some degree, under the bedroom door, rendering the
door immovable. Sergeant Barker then called the Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") and left the
residence.

Sergeant
Barker recalled that the Defendant was told not to wash his
hands. The Defendant then walked across the street to a
neighbor's house to get a drink. At some point, the
Defendant's wife, Tonya Knight, arrived at the scene and
spoke with the Defendant. The TBI arrived to process the
crime scene. As this was occurring, police officers waited
outside the residence and spoke to the Defendant, who said he
had woken up that morning and left the residence to go to the
bank and get breakfast from Hardee's for himself and the
victim. He returned to the residence, took a nap lasting a
couple of hours and, when he awoke, he found the victim
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.